Latest from VB.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

In response to the pish-stained alkies earlier diatribe regarding VB's meeting with Stockbridge:

Stop Reading If You Don’t like The Truth

Quite why David Leggat is consistently attacking Vanguard Bears is a mystery.

Vanguard Bears have considered radio silence on his rants, but have decided that all smears, lies and false assertions about our site and our members will be challenged.

Firstly, the headline:

“What promises were made to the neutrals?”

The answer to that is simple. None, and none were sought

VB have consistently remained neutral for a simple reason – it allows us to be an objective voice that questions both “sides” in the boardroom battle.

That is precisely where “we” are just now.

The first phase, ie the questioning of the current board, is far from complete, and it is our feeling that some issues raised as a consequence of the meeting need to be clarified. This process of clarification has started.

In addition, we would also like to speak to the new board members to gain an understanding of their plans for the future.

We are also still pursuing the possibility of a Q&A with Paul Murray via a third party. Following a request for questions to be vetted and sent by email our initial response was to conclude this was a refusal to engage, however we are now reviewing this position.

There are some issues within Mr Leggat’s piece that we would like to clarify, and we will state now that the implied threats within his piece have been noted.

• The choice of venue was a mutual one, at VBs suggestion. Our reasoning is fairly simple. We have nothing to hide and choosing a public place supports our approach to be out in the open. If we had wished a secret venue we would have chosen one.

• We requested the meet, as we wished to question Mr Stockbridge

• We have had no communication or dialogue with Jack Irvine whatsoever, and have stated this in a previous response to Mr Leggat

• We stated to Mr Stockbridge that we have issues with Jack Irvine being Rangers PR Spokesman

• There were no promises made of support to Mr Stockbridge. After all, we have a neutral position. If we “supported” any one side, we would have made that absolutely clear across our front page, and on our Social media pages

• There were no promises of rewards, nor any asked for. Our view on the AGM and how it pans out is simple – We hope that whoever “wins” will act in the best interests of Rangers football club, and in the interests of supporters. It’s not rocket science, and there should be no conspiracy theory.

• We have zero interest in VB being represented within the club.

• When our questions to Stockbridge have been exhausted, and an assessment made, then we will “go public”. To do so now, before we have satisfied ourselves that we can make an accurate assessment would be unprofessional.

• If the Supporters Trust have been unsuccessful in securing (another) meeting (see below) with the current board, we’d suggest that less personal attacks, smears and name calling by senior members and bloggers supportive of them might be a prudent approach.

• We hope that the current board meet with other supporters groups, although we note the RST DID meet Brian Stockbridge and former CEO Craig Mather in October. Perhaps Mr Leggat has forgotten that meeting.

• Blogger Bill McMurdo was not present at the meeting with Vanguard Bears and club representatives; was not invited, and is not a member of our site. For clarity, we should also state we have not had any dialogue with McMurdo either.

Rangers fans can be assured that as a genuinely objective body of supporters, Vanguard Bears have no agenda to “either side” of the boardroom battle, and can therefore be trusted by all Rangers supporters to simply seek and communicate the truth.

Admin

Blotto, like his masters, another busted flush.

[Phil 1,150]

Well that's that cleared up

Keep it up VB

[The Beast 9,242]

As always, a factual and accurate post from VB. My only criticism (if it is one) is why give this loon the respect of a detailed reply.

[RangersMedia 35,961]

Is it worth going through the hassle of VB's registration process to read the Q&A? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Redsox1 1,361]

Is it worth going through the hassle of VB's registration process to read the Q&A? A simple yes or no will suffice.

In your case. No.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

Very well handled yet again. They've been up there with the best commentators on this saga. Can't remember them having an agenda, other than the good of the Club, in any of their utterances.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

You criticise VB ,then you have a agenda for me ..I'm sure they have and will make mistakes .Unlike any other group, they have stayed neutral and defend our club while every other group is attacking each other .Ive said it before and I'll say it again .Nothing major will change in this infested land until our club isn't frightened to upset people and take on our many enemies .Fuck knows when that day will come but a Charles Green type figure with Rangers in his blood would be good for starters .

[RangersMedia 35,961]

In your case. No.

In my case? Now I wonder what that could mean...

[Muirheadbear 1,483]

I respect their neutral standpoint however, it appears to me that they don't seem to want to dig too deep looking for facts.

In summary, VB, to me at least, are a lightweight group.

[theiconicman 2,994]

I respect their neutral standpoint however, it appears to me that they don't seem to want to dig too deep looking for facts.

In summary, VB, to me at least, are a lightweight group.

A long winded way and negative way of saying neutral is it not?

[bluenosebrad 452]

Is it worth going through the hassle of VB's registration process to read the Q&A? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I tried but my real name must to RC for them, even though I red white & blue with a good background

[Rfc#1. 1,877]

Well said VB.

[ZZed 4,510]

Is it worth going through the hassle of VB's registration process to read the Q&A? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Think VB are invite only. If they don't know you little chance of an invite I think. I am not a VB and they don't know me but I feel these people have the right stance and reflect well as a Rangers support.

[IanCurtis 155]

I tried but my real name must to RC for them, even though I red white & blue with a good background

hahahaha. Desparate stuff!!

Comedy genius!!

[Getstiffed 8,863]

Think VB are invite only. If they don't know you little chance of an invite I think. I am not a VB and they don't know me but I feel these people have the right stance and reflect well as a Rangers support.

The reason they are so cautious is because they have actually had tarriers try and join. Some even went as far to buy tickets to our games and meet VB members at the ground, all in an attempt to join.

[bluenosebrad 452]

LOL tongue and cheek comment light up lads, A lot of fans do believe this, I myself don't as I know few within VB.

[ZZed 4,510]

The reason they are so cautious is because they have actually had tarriers try and join. Some even went as far to buy tickets to our games and meet VB members at the ground, all in an attempt to join.

Then they are right to only invite people they know share their values

[Ger77 742]

I dont know anyone in VB, however to me they are the only fans group to come out of the last couple of years with any credibility.

Their refusal to impose their own personal views on other fans is a breath of fresh air in what has often been a stench-filled battle of lies and spin between the sides vying for power.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Then they are right to only invite people they know share their values

They're a tight, well organised bunch these fifty lads.

[sonofbear 398]

Our only credible fans group

[simon 1,744]

The only thing I think VB have done wrong in the past few years, despite being a little heavy handed at times, is back Craig Whyte. But I think he fooled us all, so they can hardly be blamed.

Leggo should be kept at arms length, he's been an embarrassment since day one.

[Jase72 7]

Great Response from VB,

[Carsons Army 4,146]

The only thing I think VB have done wrong in the past few years, despite being a little heavy handed at times, is back Craig Whyte. But I think he fooled us all, so they can hardly be blamed.

Leggo should be kept at arms length, he's been an embarrassment since day one.

Simon,

VB admin had a meeting with Craig Whyte, he made promises and he told lies.

He talked the talk and VB listened, The alarm bells were ringing pretty quickly and these concerns were aired and discussed.

He was given the benefit of the doubt when he first took over,

Like most Rangers fans we were optimistic about life after Murray. but to say that VB backed him is a bit much

I will even go as far to say that some VB members were against Whyte from day 1.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

Then they are right to only invite people they know share their values

Agreed.

[simon 1,744]

Simon,

VB admin had a meeting with Craig Whyte, he made promises and he told lies.

He talked the talk and VB listened, The alarm bells were ringing pretty quickly and these concerns were aired and discussed.

He was given the benefit of the doubt when he first took over,

Like most Rangers fans we were optimistic about life after Murray. but to say that VB backed him is a bit much

I will even go as far to say that some VB members were against Whyte from day 1.

I'm sure VB released a statement at the time backing him, again, that's not really the point I was making. Whyte fooled the majority of us and nobody should be blamed. I was just saying that was the only thing I can remember that they done "wrong" the rest of the time they have been pretty spot on.